Current Events > Daum, Casey Anthony is still hot as fuck. She looks hot in dat bodycam footage

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zikten posted...

She is evil

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

harley2280 posted...

Which means it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't do it.

It means the opposite, that the prosecution was not able to resolve doubt for the charges. You do not have to prove innocence. You only have to prove guilt.

Which they couldn't. So she legally did not commit the crime.

People in this topic are the type of people that make it hard for people to get a job after prison. The court of public opinion is fucking trash.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Yeah, no shit. She literally lied at every step of the initial investigation.

To convince a jury that there is reasonable doubt that she wasn't atleast involved in what happened to that girl is some dirtbag defense lawyer magic.

It was more about the incompetence of the prosecution. They pursued the wrong charges and half assed everything because they believed the case was fairly open and shut.

---

harley2280 posted...

Which they couldn't. So she legally did not commit the crime.

People in this topic are the type of people that make it hard for people to get a job after prison. The court of public opinion is fucking trash.

I kicked a car.
No one saw me do it.
No one can prove I did it.
Therefore I didn't do it.
The car is still dented though.


---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

Which they couldn't. So she legally did not commit the crime.

People in this topic are the type of people that make it hard for people to get a job after prison. The court of public opinion is fucking trash.

I kicked a car.
No one saw me do it.
No one can prove I did it.
Therefore I didn't do it.
The car is still dented though.

You were never even charged so not really a situation that applies here. Literally no one but you knows.
---

harley2280 posted...

You were never even charged so not really a situation that applies here. Literally no one but you knows.

Well done for missing the point.

Let me spell it out...

Just because a court says someone is not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent.

---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

You were never even charged so not really a situation that applies here. Literally no one but you knows.

Well done for missing the point.

Let me spell it out...

Just because a court says someone is not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent.

Legally speaking it absolutely does.
---

harley2280 posted...

Legally speaking it absolutely does.

Please get better.

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as innocent but rather not guilty.

---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

Legally speaking it absolutely does.

Please get better.

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as innocent but rather not guilty.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/not_guilty

Adjective -

(law) Of a person, legally innocent of a crime which they have been accused of in a court of law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/innocent#:~:text=Innocent%20essentially%20means%20not%20guilty.&text=During%20the%20trial%20itself%2C%20the,be%20innocent%20until%20proven%20guilty.
---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

Legally speaking it absolutely does.

Please get better.

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as innocent but rather not guilty.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/not_guilty

Adjective -

(law) Of a person, legally innocent of a crime which they have been accused of in a court of law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/innocent#:~:text=Innocent%20essentially%20means%20not%20guilty.&text=During%20the%20trial%20itself%2C%20the,be%20innocent%20until%20proven%20guilty.

innocent

Innocent essentially means not guilty. Specifically, it refers to an individual who is not responsible for the occurrence, event, or even crime that they are accused of. It can also refer to an individual who lacks knowledge of a particular fact that is important, or material, to the relevant event itself.

I'll take Cornell's word over McDonald the fastfood lawyer.
---

harley2280 posted...

I'll take Cornell's word over McDonald the fastfood lawyer

Good good.. enjoy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/not_guilty

When the jury (or a judge sitting without a jury) acquits a defendant after trial, they return a verdict of "not guilty," which indicates their conclusion that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

I'll take Cornell's word over McDonald the fastfood lawyer

Good good.. enjoy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/not_guilty

Crazy awesome thing about America's Constitution:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence
---

harley2280 posted...

Crazy awesome thing about America's Constitution:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

She was presumed innocent.
Then she had a trial and the prosecution couldn't prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They didn't find her innocent.

I don't think you can grasp the nuance though. So you crack on lad.

---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

Crazy awesome thing about America's Constitution:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

She was presumed innocent.
Then she had a trial and the prosecution couldn't prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They didn't find her innocent.

I don't think you can grasp the nuance though. So you crack on lad.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

---

Vegy this is low man :(

---

Is harley really coming out to bat for this woman, fucking really

---

harley2280 posted...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

Lol.

You're posting things unrelated to the point in an attempt at making a point. It's misguided and frankly insulting to anyone you're attempting to debate.

It's obvious you misunderstand a lot of stuff and have difficulty with grasping critical thought. I'm guessing you're trolling for reactions because I struggle to believe anyone can function in life with such evident knowledge shortfalls.

I'm not going to bite though, it is humourous what it is you're attempting.
Remember though, repeating misguided nonsense until someone gives up replying, that isn't you winning, that's you losing, badly.

---

pinky0926 posted...

Is harley really coming out to bat for this woman, fucking really

I'm not coming out to bat for her. I'm coming out to bat for the Constitution, and the presumption of innocence.

If someone isn't proven to have committed a crime they shouldn't be treated like they're a criminal.

The same thing if someone served their sentence for a crime they did commit.

It's the type of crap that makes it so hard for felons to reintegrate into society and causes them to go right back to committing crimes.
---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

Lol.

You're posting things unrelated to the point in an attempt at making a point. It's misguided and frankly insulting to anyone you're attempting to debate.

It's obvious you misunderstand a lot of stuff and have difficulty with grasping critical thought. I'm guessing you're trolling for reactions because I struggle to believe anyone can function in life with such evident knowledge shortfalls.

I'm not going to bite though, it is humourous what it is you're attempting.
Remember though, repeating misguided nonsense until someone gives up replying, that isn't you winning, that's you losing, badly.

You think the Constitution is unrelated to the Law?
---

harley2280 posted...

I'm not coming out to bat for her. I'm coming out to bat for the Constitution, and the presumption of innocence.

If someone isn't proven to have committed a crime they shouldn't be treated like they're a criminal.

The same thing if someone served their sentence for a crime they did commit.

It's the type of crap that makes it so hard for felons to reintegrate into society and causes them to go right back to committing crimes.

You're literally the only person here who thinks "innocent until guilty" is a profound thing to argue about. Everyone gets it and everyone understand the principle of how guilty verdicts work in court rooms. And everyone still thinks she fucking murdered her child.

I know you haven't really looked into this case because you're still going on as if she was acquitted of every crime. She fucking wasn't. The kindest and most optimistic pro-casey argument you can make here based on the facts is that when her daughter died in mysterious circumstances (probably involving murder) she tried everything in her power to cover it up from her family and from investigators and tried to throw an innocent nanny under the bus. She is not an innocent person according to the very same process you are trying to defend.

---

pinky0926 posted...

You're literally the only person here who thinks "innocent until guilty" is a profound thing to argue about

It's not profound. It's no different than Freedom of religion, the right to bare arms, the right to vote etc....

It's a basic right given to all Americans in the U.S. Constitution.
---

harley2280 posted...

It's not profound. It's no different than Freedom of religion, the right to bare arms, the right to vote etc....

It's a basic right given to all Americans in the U.S. Constitution.

No, I said you are the only person who thinks this is a profound thing to argue about.

Quite literally every person in this topic understands the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and also what a "not guilty" verdict means. It's redundant. You're making "but accskually" level points here.

---

She can have my babi--

Er on second thought

---

i know i would. always stick your dick in crazy

---

pinky0926 posted...

Quite literally every person in this topic understands the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and also what a "not guilty" verdict means.

Clearly they don't.
---

what is hot about what i'm seeing her
lady in shadows bitches because public does not accept her ability to get away with legal murder

---

harley2280 posted...

Clearly they don't.

We do.
But there is one who clearly doesn't get it.
I would explain it, but leaving delusional people to their delusions makes for more entertainment.

---

harley2280 posted...

Clearly they don't.

She is allowed to be not guilty of first degree murder under the law and people are allowed to speculate on what really happened. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean you are free from suspicion for the rest of your life.

And her actions were a little more than garden variety suspicious. And also she was guilty on 4 counts, all of them serious enough to warrant calling her a trash monster.

---

The Trent posted...

what is hot about what i'm seeing her
lady in shadows bitches because public does not accept her ability to get away with legal murder OF HER OWN INFANT CHILD

some corrections surpass edits

---

On July 15, 2008, she was reported missing in a 9-1-1 call made by Cindy, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days and that Casey's car smelled like a dead body had been inside it. Cindy said Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts before finally telling her that she had not seen Caylee for weeks.[2] Casey lied to detectives, telling them Caylee had been kidnapped by a nanny on June 9, and that she had been trying to find her, too frightened to alert the authorities.

Oh yeah, that bitch absolutely did it.

---

pinky0926 posted...

harley2280 posted...

Clearly they don't.

She is allowed to be not guilty of first degree murder under the law and people are allowed to speculate on what really happened. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean you are free from suspicion for the rest of your life.

And her actions were a little more than garden variety suspicious. And also she was guilty on 4 counts, all of them serious enough to warrant calling her a trash monster.

Being suspicious isn't what the debate was about.

Dude doesn't think that Not Guilty means someone is innocent when in the eyes of the legal system, and then he got upset and started throwing personal insults when he couldn't back up his case.
---

harley2280 posted...

Being suspicious isn't what the debate was about.

Dude doesn't think that Not Guilty means someone is innocent when in the eyes of the legal system, and then he got upset and started throwing personal insults when he couldn't back up his case.

See.
Delusions are hilarious if you leave them be.

---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

Being suspicious isn't what the debate was about.

Dude doesn't think that Not Guilty means someone is innocent when in the eyes of the legal system, and then he got upset and started throwing personal insults when he couldn't back up his case.

See.
Delusions are hilarious if you leave them be.

Case in point.
---

harley2280 posted...

Being suspicious isn't what the debate was about.

Dude doesn't think that Not Guilty means someone is innocent when in the eyes of the legal system, and then he got upset and started throwing personal insults when he couldn't back up his case.

He's absolutely correct though.

You're using a constitutional argument in order to make a moral one. I.e. "Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first degree murder, therefore she deserves our benevolence". That doesn't follow. She was found guilty of 4 of the 7 counts thrown at her. So when you say she's innocent, what exactly are you saying? Is she innocent altogether, or just not exactly a murderer, legally speaking?

Someone being found not guilty in the eyes of the law doesn't mean you need to believe they are a good person.

---

harley2280 posted...

Case in point.

Hey there..

Define "presumed" for us, without Google, give us an example of your intellect.

---

pinky0926 posted...

Someone being found not guilty in the eyes of the law doesn't mean you need to believe they are a good person.

Again not what I said. Presumption of innocence means innocent until proven guilty. A not guilty verdict means you're still legally innocent.

This isn't about what type of person she is or isn't.
---

DravenRainrix posted...

harley2280 posted...

Case in point.

Hey there..

Define "presumed" for us, without Google, give us an example of your intellect.

Yeah as soon as you provide something to actually back up your case.
---

harley2280 posted...

Yeah as soon as you provide something to actually back up your case.

And what case am I making?
I mean as you understand it, what case am I making?

---

harley2280 posted...

Again not what I said. Presumption of innocence means innocent until proven guilty. A not guilty verdict means you're still legally innocent.

Which isn't really a point at all since we already know what these terms mean and how they are relevant legally. What are you actually trying to get at here? Are you mad that people don't believe the not-guilty verdict? Why? Where in the legal framework does it say you're not allowed to question it?

This isn't about what type of person she is or isn't.

Isn't it, because only a few posts ago you were lamenting about how hard it is for ex-cons to get jobs, as if to imply that poor innocents like this one deserve better.


---

I dont care what harlet374738 says I still think that bitch killed her kid

---

Elmer_Glue posted...

If anyone has the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJt_afGN3IQ

JCS is the best channel on youtube

---

clearly she killed her daughter

---

I wonder if her parents still talk to her

---

harley2280 posted...

If someone isn't proven to have committed a crime they shouldn't be treated like they're a criminal.

why not? the constitution is a set of rules (and powers) for the federal government, not for you or me

your link on presumption of innocence is specific about this:

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

so since you're so dead-set on being technically correct, please fix yourself

---

Daughter missing for a month "eh...i don't need to call the cops". Drink thrown on her at a bar: "Call the cops IMMEDIATELY!"

---

Didn't the nanny turn out to be a combination of street signs near her home?

---

Your sperm would take one look at her and turn around and go back inside

---

She's probably up there for "worst humans ever" but she is really hot.

---